Democrat staff members who belong to a far-Left caucus withdrew a letter that they wrote this week to congressional leaders asking for a 32-hour workweek to avoid burnout after they were widely mocked online over the request. The Congressional Progressive Staff Association said in a statement that it “hereby withdraws its recent letter to congressional leadership on a rotating 32-hour workweek.” “The letter failed to make two things clear: First, that progressive congressional staff are dedicated to serving the American people no matter how many hours it takes to get the job done,” they claimed. “Second, that there are well-known, longstanding workplace issues that deserve Congress’s immediate attention if it wishes to effectively serve the people.” “There are myriad ways Congress can address these issues,” they continued. “Right now, a 32-hour workweek for staff will not be one of them.” “We are ready to continue the urgent task of serving our bosses’ constituents and advancing the causes that put working-class people first,” they further claimed. The sudden reversal came as numerous top Republicans and business leaders openly mocked the letter on X. CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT The Congressional Progressive Staff Association claimed in their original letter that the proposal was about “a more sustainable approach to work on a national level.” “By adopting a 32-hour workweek for staff on a rotating basis, you can accomplish these goals while retaining the productivity and quality of work you expect and deserve from your team,” they said. “We urge you to consider piloting the program in your own offices and encouraging your fellow Members across your conference or caucus to do the same.” They complained that their jobs working for members of Congress were “often demanding and intensive.” “Staffers routinely work long hours at a level of rigor that regularly leads to burnout,” the letter claimed. The proposal said that members should institute “a 32-hour workweek for D.C.-based staff during district work periods and a 32-hour workweek for district-based staff while in-session.” “Doing so — without a reduction in pay — would allow both D.C. and distinct staff to be fully available around the clock throughout more intensive periods when the Member is in town while allowing for a more sustainable schedule when workloads are more manageable,” they added. “If implemented, offices are not likely to see a drop in overall productivity.” The staffers claimed that members who were skeptical should “engage in a six-month pilot” to see if the reduction in hours leads to increased outcomes.

Johnathan Owens and Simone Biles are two very talented athletes, but only one can be the best in their marriage. Sports Illustrated named Simone the Sportsperson of the Year after her incredible performance at the 2024 Paris Olympics. The gymnastics world has long thought of Simone as the greatest of all time, but what does her husband think? It seems Johnathan agrees. During a red carpet event at the Sports Illustrated Sportsperson of the Year event, Johnathan and Simone each answered rapid-fire questions about their marriage. When asked who the best athlete is, Johnathan quickly pointed to his wife, “I’m not doing no backflips. Nah,” he joked. When asked who the better cheerleader is in the marriage, Simone Biles said it’s her husband. She admitted that sometimes, football is hard to follow. “Jonathan, he knows more and he really pays attention,” she said, “After the first half, I lose track of the game.” .@Simone_Biles and @jjowens_3 didn't hesitate with these answers pic.twitter.com/P7uxfhii8e— Sports Illustrated (@SInow) January 17, 2025 Simone Biles’s Husband Came Under Fire For Comments About Their Marriage in 2023 During an episode of The Pivot podcast, Channing Crowder sat down with Simone and Johnathan, and the hosts asked how they got together. “How in the hell did you pull Simone Biles?” Johnathan admitted he had no idea who Simone was. “The first thing that I saw was that she just had a bunch of [Instagram] followers. So in my mind, I’m like, ‘Okay, she’s gotta be good,'” he shared. Later in the interview, Channing asked Johnathan who he thought was the catch in their relationship, and he said, “I always say that the men are the catch,” which caused intense backlash for the couple. As the most decorated gymnast in history, many wondered how Johnathan thought he was one to grab. “He never said I wasn’t a catch,” Simone later clarified on the Call Her Daddy podcast. “He said he was a catch because he is. I’ve never met a man like him. A lot of people that meet him are like, oh my gosh. I want a man like that, like Jonathan.” She explained, “I thought it was hilarious what people were saying divorce him, divorce him. All of this crazy stuff. And, like, he doesn’t even like to say divorce. So I thought it was hilarious at first, and then they hurt my feelings,” she said. Simone added, “Then, like, one night, I broke down, and I’m like, ‘Why are you guys talking about my husband like this?'” Although the incident caused a stir at the time, Simone Biles and Johnathan Owens’ marriage appears solid, and the pair are happier than ever. This story’s featured image is by Carmen Mandato/Getty Images. The post Simone Biles’ Husband Finally Admits Who the Better Athlete Is in Their Marriage appeared first on InspireMore.

'Mismanaged from top to bottom'

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—As President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration approaches, President Joe Biden’s lame-duck administration is racing to Trump-proof its green jobs program. The Biden White House has “quietly been winding down” the American Climate Corps—a de facto environmental public works program established via a September 2023 executive order that hires and trains civilians to work on climate change projects, according to environmental media organization Grist. The effort is a “precautionary step” to make it more difficult for the incoming Trump administration to target the 15,000 taxpayer-funded jobs propped up by the ACC, which was championed by progressive lawmakers such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. While Biden is nominally undoing the ACC, employees of the multibillion-dollar program will keep their jobs. Many of the ACC programs, such as the Forest Corps in Northern California, have locked down funding for years, the Grist reported. The ACC’s variety of programs are also funded through a hodgepodge of federal agencies, including the departments of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Labor, and Energy; the Environmental Protection Agency; and AmeriCorps, which could make it difficult for the Trump administration to axe the spending. Biden’s September 2023 executive order claimed the ACC would “train young people in clean energy, conservation, and climate resilience skills, create good-paying jobs and tackle the climate crisis.” It also sought to “improve on [former] President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps by rectifying the racial and gender inequities of the past to build a climate corps for today,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said during a January 2024 ACC information session. The climate public works program has drawn the ire of many Republicans and energy experts, with Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., describing the program in November 2021 as “pure socialist wish fulfillment,” noting that the ACC’s aim of creating taxpayer-funded jobs came at a time of an immense labor shortage. Former Republican Texas State Rep. and CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac echoed McConnell’s sentiment in a written statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation: The American Climate Corps represents a waste of taxpayer dollars, echoing the same pitfalls as the proposed National Climate Bank. These programs distort free markets, prioritize optics over measurable results, and provide no environmental benefits. Instead of solving real problems like energy reliability and affordability, these initiatives misdirect resources that could otherwise drive innovation and economic prosperity. Meanwhile, Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and former Trump EPA transition team member, told the Daily Caller News Foundation Trump should reverse Biden’s 2023 executive order: “Biden created the American Climate Corps by Executive order. President Trump should roll it back the same way. It is not possible for the Climate Corps to improve the weather, and it was not authorized by Congress in the first place.” Joe Biden, AOC, and Ed Markey have teamed up to announce the launch of'The American Climate Corps', a militarily-named organisation where you can apply to get paid to fight climate change while being "educated" on the subject.Psychopaths ?? pic.twitter.com/oB6CoxMRMC— Kelly DNP Functional/Integrative Medicine (@kacdnp91) April 27, 2024 Ocasio-Cortez was instrumental in the program’s establishment, recommending its creation as part of the Democratic Party’s campaign climate task force, and reintroducing legislation that would have established the ACC prior to Biden’s executive order. “The so-called Climate Corps is nothing more than a Green New Deal pipedream that is so unpopular that President Biden couldn’t even get it passed in the democratic-controlled Congress and had to rely on a cobbled-together web of left-wing groups to fund these fanciful mandarins tasked with prioritizing Progressive Lifestyle Choices,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers and the former solicitor general of Arizona, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The Biden administration continues to waste as much taxpayer money as it possibly can on its way out the door in a ridiculous effort to hamper the incoming Trump administration’s commonsense policies that will lower prices for the American people.” The American Climate Corps did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post ‘Pure Socialist Wish Fulfillment’: Biden Attempts to Trump-Proof AOC’s Favorite Jobs Program appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Rebranded Women's March Takes Place Tomorrow

A Fitting Last Act for the Cannibal King and His Coconut Queen

The FDA has announced plans to ban Red Dye No. 3 in the American food supply, citing long-standing health concerns, including cancer. “The list is long of the effects. They’ve been difficult to prove,” Hilary Kennedy of “Four-Minute Buzz” tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.” “But on the whole, they’ve been linked to cancer, hyperactivity in children, rage, brain buzzing, sluggishness.” The dye isn’t just used in food but also in cough syrups. “As if we need dye in cough syrups,” Peterson says. “It is interesting to me, like why now? Why are we doing this now? And aren’t there a lot more substances out there like this that we use all the time in our food?” “I think people have started to realize, ‘Hey, this isn’t healthy, why is this in here?’ And one of the reasons that we are just now hearing about it is there hasn’t been a lot of testing around this,” Kennedy answers. However, while some people are just starting to wake up, others like Senator Tommy Tuberville have been championing this cause for quite some time and questioning FDA officials over the harmful effects of Red Dye No. 3. “Red Dye No. 3 has been known to cause cancer in cosmetics, but we still allow it to be put in our food? I don’t understand that,” Tuberville said in a January 15 hearing. “They’ve banned it in cosmetics. So you can’t put this on your skin, yet they let us go on ingesting this for however many more decades after this,” Savage says, noting that while we’re all cheering the ban, other dyes remain. “We can say this is a victory for red dye No. 3, but then there’s Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow No. 5 and everything,” she adds. “That’s where this is difficult,” Kennedy says. “We can ban Red Dye No. 3, but like you said, there’s Red Dye No. 40. So they can replace it with all of these other chemicals that are not being banned.” Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Minnesota state Supreme Court ruled in favor of Republicans who said Democratic Gov. Tim Walz had wrongfully called for a special election in a struggle over control of the legislature. The court ruled that Walz prematurely called for a special election in House District 40B and canceled the election scheduled for Jan. 28. Now Republicans will retain their one-vote advantage in the state House of RepresentativesRepublicans had successfully challenged the victory of Democrat Curtis Johnson in the district after they didn't meet the residency requirements in the law. While the law says the governor can call a special election after the legislative session begins, Walz issued a writ of special election on the day that Johnson resigned from the seat. The court dismissed arguments from attorneys for Walz that the election contest became "irrelevant" when Walz called for the special election. Had Walz's scheme succeeded, then the victor of the special election would have been seated on Feb. 3 and possibly tied control of the legislature. Now Republicans will retain their one-vote advantage in the state House of Representatives until the seat can be filled according to the law. Members of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party have been boycotting the legislature in order to deny Republicans quorum and filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court against Republicans voting for leaders in the legislature. Republican House Leader Lisa Demuth praised the court for correctly ruling "that the Governor failed the follow the law in his attempt to speed up the special election to help the political fortunes of the Democrat party.”Walz lost his campaign to win the vice presidential office in the 2024 election alongside Vice President Kamala Harris. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A recent social media debate about the state of the American economy should make the GOP consider whether the party of self-empowerment should rebrand itself as the party of entitlement. Christopher Rufo is a journalist who is well known for, among other things, his culture war crusades against critical race theory in K-12 schools and diversity, equity, and inclusion training in universities. But the goodwill he built up on the right began to evaporate quickly among his former supporters when he cited higher-than-expected salaries for managers at Panda Express and Chipotle as signs of a strong economy. Life is hard, but part of being a man is doing hard things. Those bootstraps aren’t going to pull themselves up. A descriptive point about the availability of work quickly morphed into accusations that right-wing influencers want young Americans — particularly white men — to accept the declining status brought on by unfettered immigration, the H-1B visa program, DEI, and other forms of anti-white discrimination. As is often the case on social media — especially X — critics responded emotionally to the point they thought Rufo was making instead of replying logically to his actual words. One of the most illuminating aspects of the online chatter was the clear sense many people felt that working in the service industry was beneath young Americans today. One popular account even suggested going to trade school was a sign that some conservatives want young men to willingly accept a life of mediocrity. In response, several commentators described having to struggle for years before becoming financially established — the same path every generation has had to take. The problem is that some people seem to think young people should have six-figure salaries within a few years of finishing college. This debate is crucial for conservatives to hash out in public. While we all agree that elected officials must serve their constituents, opinions clearly diverge on the finer points of the deal. This debate centers on a word that often makes conservatives uncomfortable: entitlement. Conservatives easily recognize entitlement when a newly graduated Ivy League student demands that co-workers respect his “she/they” pronouns. The same applies to progressives who insist on quotas in industries based on superficial identity traits like skin color, sex, or sexual preference. Yet expecting a specific type of job in an ideal location with a high salary is equally entitled. This dynamic makes the current conservative debate especially compelling. For decades, liberals have argued that stagnant upward mobility in the working class — particularly for black Americans — stems from policy decisions, institutional bias, and market forces. They attribute disparities in unemployment rates and household income to employment discrimination. Similarly, they cite bias in banking as the reason for gaps in homeownership rates. Conservatives often counter leftist critiques by emphasizing family, cultural norms, personal responsibility, and resisting self-pity. More people are starting to notice the heightened understanding conservatives display now that structural critiques are emerging from the right. I hope policymakers and pundits in the MAGA era develop policies and cultural solutions that address the needs of all Americans, not just their favored groups. A hardworking young man should be able to pursue a meaningful vocation, find a good wife, raise a large family, support his community, and become part of a thriving local church. This vision applies equally to young black men in Brooklyn and young white men in Boise. Elected officials should consider both as constituents. At the same time, those men must work hard, seize every opportunity, and remain driven. An entitlement mindset teaches people to focus on what they believe others owe them and encourages blaming external forces for personal failures. In contrast, an empowerment mindset fosters growth and the determination to make the most of available opportunities. Those who expect an ideal job in their desired location risk falling into envy, resentment, and self-pity. Meanwhile, those who take the job they can get and work diligently until a better one arises set themselves on the path to gratitude and fulfillment. Yes, we should elect politicians who serve the interests of the American people. But even a booming economy doesn’t protect us from struggle. We can either respond with complaints about who owes us or get to work charting a path forward. Life is hard, but part of being a man is doing hard things. Those bootstraps aren’t going to pull themselves up.

NYT Shock Revelation: Biden's Lawless Rule Was Right Under Their Ivy League Noses the Whole Time